View Full Version : Tempest brews over quotes on Starbucks cups
I don't get angry often reading the news paper, but I couldn't help it this time. You know those quotes Starbucks prints on their coffee cups? Well, Concerned Women for America are apparently up in arms about a quote on a Starbucks cup by Armistead Maupin.My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short.They say, "I think it's wiser for them to stay out of these issues so that they don't offend conservatives and people of faith."
Please tell me how any mention of the gay community is offensive to Christians?
Here's the article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002455480_starbucks29m.html
There's plenty of other things about Starbucks that offends me and it has nothing to do with any social agenda that they, may or may not be pushing. Of course, I just don't get my coffee there. i don't need to make public statements about it. How arrogant of that organization (CWA) to assume they've got any ground on this. It seems to me that taking a public stand against the literary content of a disposable coffee cup shows a pretty skewed view about what's worth worrying about in our world today.
Franz Josef
2005-09-02, 07:52
It just looks like stupidity, rasmits. :no:
The only people that should be offended by that quote are intolerant, xenophobic bigots. That may not describe all Christians, but it certainly describes the vocal ones.
I find the CWA's comments to be offensive. Maybe they shut shut their yappers because "I think it's wiser for them to stay out of these issues so that they don't offend more tolerant human beings and people that believe in equal rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, or creed."
Here's something even more offensive from the article:In Oregon last month, Nike withstood opposition and an e-mail campaign organized by a Christian organization over Nike's support of legislation that would have allowed civil unions and banned discrimination against gays.
So, these zealots are openly admitting that they're encouraging wanton discrimination in the workplace and the elimination of over a hundred years of improved civil rights. Well, at least they're not hiding any agenda!
I wish I could organize a group to discriminate against and try to dissolve any unions of boneheaded "Christians."
Yeah, this would be like the KKK saying they're offended by quoting black people who talked about their experience during the civil rights movement.
"What? You say they're happy to be members of society who are generally accepted as equals and whose lifestyles are recognized by most people as legitimate? I'M OFFENDED!!!"
Yeah, this would be like the KKK saying they're offended by quoting black people who talked about their experience during the civil rights movement.:lol: Perfect analogy.
pscates2.0
2005-09-02, 08:41
Please tell me how any mention of the gay community is offensive to Christians?
You almost answer your own question. It's in the Bible, at least that's what 99% of people take those passages to mean. Whether or not you, me, Elton John, GLAAD, etc. buy into it isn't the point. It's there, and it's what many believe, whether we like it or not.
It's just where you and others - who are "offended that Christians are offended" - break and view stuff differently.
Personally, I don't care. I don't drink coffee and I don't go to Starbucks. And, on top of that, I know way too many good, quality people in my life - who are gay or Christians - to broadbrush or rag on either for every little thing I might not agree with from either side.
The things Christians believe - whether you and others dig it or not - have been around a lot longer than any of us. And it's what they believe. You don't get to change that. You don't have to like it, and that's your right.
It's like people getting mad about the new Pope being "too hardline" (or "too Catholic", whatever that means...I actually heard someone say that). People acting like he's supposed to veer from hundreds of years of beliefs and tenets to "better mesh with today's world".
How about "today's world" try not being such a jacked-up, anything-goes cesspool of idiocy, debauchery and selfishness and there probably wouldn't be such a divide to begin with? The world changes, and drifts. And some things stay constant. If you don't believe that or like that idea, then don't buy into it.
But others do, so leave them alone. And drink your coffee.
:)
I see this as one of those little things that only two small segments of the population are going to get riled up over - gay activists who are always offended at something and ultra-stern religious folks who, you guessed it, are always offended at something. The rest of us would like to think we've got more pressing concerns and bigger fish to fry. I don't care, and I don't identify with either of them, frankly.
:rolleyes:
In fact, I don't even know why I bothered posting in this thread. It's about the most "something from nothing" story I've heard in several days. But it's a nice break from all the NOLA despair and craziness.
:)
I have a great solution: don't put anymore quotes -of any kind- on the fucking coffee cups. It's a paper cup, why does anything besides a logo need to be on there? Are people really that fucking bored? Does Starbucks really need that extra boost to their PC marketing agenda, in order to turn a big profit this year? Will all the "liberal people" they've identified in focus groups suddenly stop drinking their coffee if they remove their righteous quotes?
The whole idea is bordering on asinine.
BarracksSi
2005-09-02, 09:27
It's like people getting mad about the new Pope being "too hardline" (or "too Catholic", whatever that means...I actually heard someone say that). People acting like he's supposed to veer from hundreds of years of beliefs and tenets to "better mesh with today's world".
Well, if he's too hardcore Catholic, he'll alienate the people who are on the fence about Catholicism (and Christianity in general), and that defeats one of the driving forces of Christianity -- spreading their Word far and wide (and eliminating other "savage" religions in the process).
I say keep the Pope and make sure he adheres to the strictest, most boiled-down forms of Catholic doctrine. Show people what it's really all about, not the glossed-over modernized crap.
You almost answer your own question. It's in the Bible, at least that's what 99% of people take those passages to mean. Whether or not you, me, Elton John, GLAAD, etc. buy into it isn't the point. It's there, and it's what many believe, whether we like it or not.
It's just where you and others - who are "offended that Christians are offended" - break and view stuff differently.
[...]
The things Christians believe - whether you and others dig it or not - have been around a lot longer than any of us. And it's what they believe. You don't get to change that. You don't have to like it, and that's your right.
I don't think I'd have as much a problem with these people if they actually believed and practiced their own religion. As it stands today, these "Christians" treat their Bible like a pick-and-choose buffet, taking a few things that fit their current agenda and wholly ignoring entire books that don't. They are hypocrites to the extreme, damning others for not following their beliefs when they should be damned for not following their own beliefs, and pose a serious threat to civil liberties for everyone.
Frankly, I think these women need to go back to Bible School.
"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14)
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Timothy 2)
:p :lol:
pscates2.0
2005-09-02, 09:32
:D
I was going to suggest that too. Because we are now officially living in the era of "you're always gonna piss SOMEBODY off, no matter what".
That's just true.
So how about just a plain ol' cup with the Starbucks logo on it all nice and pretty, and give the social commentary and "we are the world" thing a break? Then everyone could simply STFU, drink their beverage in peace and we won't even have to waste time hearing about stories like this.
Totally works for me (pretending that I actually drank the vile stuff to begin with).
:)
pscates2.0
2005-09-02, 09:39
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Timothy 2)
:p :lol:
Yeah, I tried that little verse on my last girlfriend. Didn't turn out so well. I was smited in thy balls for 40 nights.
:D
;)
I'm KIDDING. I didn't even know there was a Timothy until just now.
:o
"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14)
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Timothy 2)
:p :lol:
I think you just converted me ;) :D
Engine Joe
2005-09-02, 10:59
What a waste of a potential subject line. Should have been "Tempest in a coffee cup." ;)
Pscates, I get what you're saying, but maybe I should clarify.
You used the words, 'offended that Christians are offended'. It's not the Christians, it's CWA. They find a comment about gay people, and use their bigoted reactions to claim it offends Christians and people of Faith, when in reality, it only offends other crazy bigots.
They should have just said, "I think it's wiser for them to stay out of these issues so that they don't offend the homophobe and racist demographic." NOT claim it offends Christians. I guess it's just what's been going on for decades, hiding their biased with faith.
If I were a Christian, I think I would be offended that my religion was being used to justify this behavior. So, this has nothing to do with me blindly disagreeing with Christians because of the statement of one organization that I know many of my Christian friends and family don't agree with. This is purely about the statement of one organization.
And about "drinking my coffee", I go to Starbucks about once every 2 months, and that's usually to meet a friend that suggested we go there. I know that's not important, but it needed to be said. I'm not defending my favorite corporation.
Frank777
2005-09-02, 15:33
The only people that should be offended by that quote are intolerant, xenophobic bigots.
Good to know.
I firmly believe in the Christian teaching and concepts on sexuality.
And if I was handed a cup with that quote on it, I'd hand it back and ask for a refund.
DMBand0026
2005-09-02, 16:04
Good to know.
I firmly believe in the Christian teaching and concepts on sexuality.
And if I was handed a cup with that quote on it, I'd hand it back and ask for a refund.
Why?
Indeed, why? I appreciate that you have that opinion, but other people have different opinions.
Would you be offended if anyone handed back a cup with a Christian quote on and asked for a refund?
Having said all that, why put controversial quotes on coffee cups anyway?
DMBand0026
2005-09-02, 17:31
Why is gay a controversy? It's just normal people trying to live their lives.
Good to know.
I firmly believe in the Christian teaching and concepts on sexuality.
And if I was handed a cup with that quote on it, I'd hand it back and ask for a refund.
Actually, the Christian teaching on sexuality varies quite a bit, depending on the particular church.
Christian teaching on Homosexuality is mostly based on Leviticus:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Who also has as much to say about shellfish:
Lev 11:10-12 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Why is shellfish ok now, but not homosexuality?
DMBand0026
2005-09-02, 17:39
Why is shellfish ok now, but not homosexuality?
Chalk that one up to the Catholics who over the years have decided what's important in the Bible and what's not in order to best serve their own interests.
Interestingly enough, you'd be hard pressed to find a Bible in a Catholic church that doesn't belong to the priest or bishop or whomever is the higher up in the church. The Catholics don't want their people reading the Bible for fear they'd realize that they've changed so much of it to better fit the Catholic interests.
*sigh*... do I have to go over this again?
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
OK, Bible science lesson time! I highlighted the word "man" for a reason there. There is a perfectly valid explanation for why only men are mentioned there. Reproductive science was so primitive at the time that they didn't understand the concept of the female egg. It was believed at the time that the male sperm was the entire life of the child. The woman's only role in reproduction was that of the incubator/storage facility for the baby. Of course, we know today that this is not true and that the woman has an equal biological role to men. However, in Biblical times, any act that caused the male to ejaculate without depositing the sperm inside the woman's vagina was considered murderous, as it ended the life of the child (according to their primitive scientific understanding).
This lack of knowledge led to several things:
1) Condemnation of homosexuals of both genders from that day until now. Many people extended these laws to cover women (and still do so today), even though women were clearly left out of the picture.
2) Male masturbation was also outlawed in the scriptures (I don't care to look it up now, but if someone else would like to, that's fine). Again, this was extended to women, despite the fact that they are not mentioned in those scriptures.
3) The Catholic Church's denial of birth control. Condoms are wrong to the church because they stop the flow of the man's sperm. Other forms of birth control similarly "kill" the baby. (I'm only talking about physical and chemical birth control, not abortion--I'm not sure how that ties in to this, but I'm sure it probably does)
4) The low status of women in the Bible as well as in some conservative churches today. The verse in Timothy mentioned above was a good reference, actually, as it showed that women were just not important (after all, the man was solely responsible for creating life, so he should be in charge, or so their logic was).
With context considered, the four things I listed above are actually kind of heretical today if you ask me. Clearly we understand more than we did back in those days and today we can understand that being gay is perfectly natural, as is masturbation; birth control is ok, and women are equal to men because they have an equal role.
I'm pretty serious about my faith, and I'm also pretty serious about people not studying and understanding the scriptures from their contextual perspective. The context of the scripture is often more important than the content.
Can we get back to the point of the thread now?
kscherer
2005-09-02, 18:06
Since I know this is going to turn into a big, nasty, name-calling, bitch-fest . . . IBL :)
Once again, those who DEMAND tolerance, have none of their own.
"I don't like your views. Go die!"
"I don't like that you don't like my views. Go die yourself!"
"I don't like anything. All of you go die!"
And since any further input will get me chastised, I will agree (mostly) with P2.0 and bail! :rolleyes:
Yeah, it probably will be locked and it may be my fault, but I was just trying to clarify something.
Question for you, though. Do you think I'm intolerant? I don't really think I am, and if that's what my last post came across as, I apologize. I think it's ok for people to have different views. That's what makes us human. It's ok that some people are offended by the lifestyle of my gay friends because those who are offended simply don't have to come to a party I invite my gay friends to, and they don't have to go to gay bars or anything. What pisses me off is when people stand up and say things like "God hates fags" and nobody says anything to stop them. So, I guess if there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance.
kscherer
2005-09-02, 18:17
Keep in mind that not tolerating intolerance is, itself, intolerance! You thinking that someone should stop them from expressing their opinion is as intolerant as them expressing it in the first place. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy!
Do not demand your right to speak, and then turn around and attempt to stifle the free speech of others.
And no offense taken! :)
Quite true. But to what point should we be defending hate speech? If there's a group of people standing on the street screaming about how gay people should all be killed because that's what the Bible calls for, should we tolerate that? At what point do we stop protecting the aggressors and start protecting their targets?
Frank777
2005-09-03, 00:33
Why?
Primarily because I came in for a cup of coffee, not to walk around promoting another company's great idea for generating sales through controversy.
Actually, the Christian teaching on sexuality varies quite a bit, depending on the particular church.
Ok, the Bible's idea teaching and concepts of sexuality then. ;)
Why is shellfish ok now, but not homosexuality?
The levitical dietary injunctions, while important to the survival of a race wandering the Middle Eastern deserts, are not the same as laws on morality. Coupled with that is the fact that the laws against homosexuality are repeated in the New Testament while the dietary laws are not.
(As an aside: crab, shrimp and lobster are all bottom feeders which contain more impurities from the ocean than other fish. So technically they aren't ok, but we live in a society that doesn't care anymore.)
fcgriz: While I disagree with your point of view, you've obviously though about this subject and I have no problem with you expressing your point of view. I don't think anything you've said should get the thread locked.
The verse in Timothy mentioned above was a good reference, actually, as it showed that women were just not important (after all, the man was solely responsible for creating life, so he should be in charge, or so their logic was).
I think you've misunderstood the rationale for Male and Female roles in the Bible.
In Genesis, God creates a man and grants him dominion over the earth. He then creates a woman as a "helpmate" for the man. This does not regard woman as a lesser creature, but establishes a command structure for the family - the world's most important institution and the building block of society.
Thus, the Bible doesn't think "women are not important" but charges men with the job to care for the woman and children as head of the household.
While this isn't politically correct to say nowadays, it is easily verified in North America. Absentee fathers are usually the first sign of a society about to be mired in guns, gangs and an overall increase in crime and suffering.
Frank777
2005-09-03, 00:39
Quite true. But to what point should we be defending hate speech? If there's a group of people standing on the street screaming about how gay people should all be killed because that's what the Bible calls for, should we tolerate that? At what point do we stop protecting the aggressors and start protecting their targets?
I've heard of exactly one crackpot who does that, and most of the members of his church are related to him.
No one who understands Jesus' message says anything of the sort.
And if they did, they'd have to call for the same to be done to gamblers, prostitutes and most of the generally obese North American populace just to be fair. (Remember most of the places the Bible condemns homosexuality also contains injunctions against gluttony, and there's a good reason for that.)
pscates2.0
2005-09-03, 00:39
Why is shellfish ok now, but not homosexuality?
Because it tastes better with garlic and butter. Get a clue.
I have a great solution: don't put anymore quotes -of any kind- on the fucking coffee cups. It's a paper cup, why does anything besides a logo need to be on there? Are people really that fucking bored? Does Starbucks really need that extra boost to their PC marketing agenda, in order to turn a big profit this year? Will all the "liberal people" they've identified in focus groups suddenly stop drinking their coffee if they remove their righteous quotes?
The whole idea is bordering on asinine.
Agreed. If Starbucks is actually trying to do something good they could funnel the money used to run this quote on a cup campaign into a real charity which aims to help people from various groups.
Basically it's another synical corporate move geared to make more money whilst appearing to be cool, or trendy, or relevant, or supporting a cause.
Heck, we are even playing right into their hands, as are the CWA by talking about it and publicizing it.
*sigh*... do I have to go over this again?
OK, Bible science lesson time! I highlighted the word "man" for a reason there. There is a perfectly valid explanation for why only men are mentioned there. Reproductive science was so primitive at the time that they didn't understand the concept of the female egg. It was believed at the time that the male sperm was the entire life of the child. The woman's only role in reproduction was that of the incubator/storage facility for the baby. Of course, we know today that this is not true and that the woman has an equal biological role to men. However, in Biblical times, any act that caused the male to ejaculate without depositing the sperm inside the woman's vagina was considered murderous, as it ended the life of the child (according to their primitive scientific understanding).
This lack of knowledge led to several things:
1) Condemnation of homosexuals of both genders from that day until now. Many people extended these laws to cover women (and still do so today), even though women were clearly left out of the picture.
2) Male masturbation was also outlawed in the scriptures (I don't care to look it up now, but if someone else would like to, that's fine). Again, this was extended to women, despite the fact that they are not mentioned in those scriptures.
3) The Catholic Church's denial of birth control. Condoms are wrong to the church because they stop the flow of the man's sperm. Other forms of birth control similarly "kill" the baby. (I'm only talking about physical and chemical birth control, not abortion--I'm not sure how that ties in to this, but I'm sure it probably does)
4) The low status of women in the Bible as well as in some conservative churches today. The verse in Timothy mentioned above was a good reference, actually, as it showed that women were just not important (after all, the man was solely responsible for creating life, so he should be in charge, or so their logic was).
With context considered, the four things I listed above are actually kind of heretical today if you ask me. Clearly we understand more than we did back in those days and today we can understand that being gay is perfectly natural, as is masturbation; birth control is ok, and women are equal to men because they have an equal role.
I'm pretty serious about my faith, and I'm also pretty serious about people not studying and understanding the scriptures from their contextual perspective. The context of the scripture is often more important than the content.
Can we get back to the point of the thread now?
Very succinct and well put. Religion really does need to take a long hard look at itself, in all faiths, and start to understand why it's had certain rules in the past, and how / if they are socially relevant any more.. Rather than blindly following out of date beliefs almost simply for the sake of zealotry.
I don't however agree that "being gay is perfectly natural" I am afriad. That being said, what people do is up to them as long as it doesn't impact on me without my consent.
pscates2.0
2005-09-03, 00:51
They could make a "Hurricane Katrina is a real a-hole" cup, and send all the proceeds to help in the relief efforts.
Can't imagine that stirring up too much resentment or grief, especially if they'll leave the part off about Katrina being a transgendered storm of color and all.
I don't however agree that "being gay is perfectly natural" I am afriad.What is it then? A choice?
What is it then? A choice?
No. Of course not. (And we are getting off topic here)
But it's not "perfectly natural". Call me old-fashioned!
Neither is jumping out of a plane, for example. I do in fact choose to do that. But it's not a normal comman alll day passtime. And some people find the idea abhorrent, scary or plain man.
I also don't mind people doing 'un-natural' things, if they choose to, or are compelled to. It's all part of life's rich tapestry.
But being gay is not "perfectly natural".
Disregard religion and all other things for the time being that people get so het up about... Human beings, heck all animals, are put on the Earth with one very simple thing to do. Survive. Part of their natural process is to pro-create.
Being gay is (in the correct dictionary sense and not in any name calling sense) a perversion of that natural drive.
Being gay does not serve that function, so based purely on that alone I would say it is not "perfectly natural".
Scratt, you've just articulated a very ancient and in my view not entirely satisfactory view of natural law (http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm).
Starting with Plato's doctrine of Forms (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/plato.htm#SH6b), there was an idea that every object and every person were a reflection of a "perfect" idea of that thing or humanity. Everything should therefore strive to achieve that perfection (although it could never be met), the aspects of which could be derived by logical thought. Acts or traits which were antithetical to the perfect/rational nature of a thing could be said to be contrary to natural law.
In your case, you assume that survival is part of the "nature" of any living things, in an abstract philosophical sense. This is certainly true on an intellectual level — it just seems to make common sense.
On the other hand, you can look at the empirical evidence from nature, and see that there is substantial evidence of homosexual activity amongst primates, and deduce that in reality nature is a bit more perverse than pure logic would allow for.
Which is more satisfying — the empirical or the philosophical nature? I'll take the former, but then again, I'm an atheist, so I'm probably predisposed to that point of view.
Actually I've articulated my views. Period.
Very tempting with your example to make a joke about monkeys and.... I am resisting.
:)
Just because some other animals behave that way does not make it the norm, nor does it make it "perfectly natural".
If all animals behaved that way we would be extinct. QED.
By the way. I am an atheist too. So perhaps you have a preconceived idea that I am a raging hater of homosexuals, or a religeous fanatic. I am neither.
I hesitate to say I have lot's of gay friends, as it is such a crass thing to say. Notheless it is true... and they all know and respect my views.
There are many things that I think are "un-natural".
That does not mean I think they are morally wrong, or that you will go to hell if you do them.
Robbing banks is not "perfectly natural", however I think that the people who do it in a skillful way are quite cool people... :)
Just because some other animals behave that way does not make it the norm, nor does it make it "perfectly natural".
Why can't the norm be that a finite percentage of a species have a predisposition to or willingness to have sex with their own gender? Is that really that strange? There are all sorts of traits in animals which just don't seem to make sense (why the hell do we have hair on our head but nowhere else? why do young men have a predisposition to nose-picking?) — but that doesn't make them unnatural.
By the way. I am an atheist too. So perhaps you have a preconceived idea that I am a raging hater of homosexuals, or a religeous fanatic. I am neither.
Did I say that? It was an (admittedly flip) comment on the personal reasons why I fall down on one side. I certainly didn't mean that was necessarily the case, because strangely I realise that not everyone is exactly like me (and a damn good thing too).
I'm terribly sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, because it was intended as anything but.
I'm terribly sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, because it was intended as anything but.
No offense taken at all. I am pretty thick skinned, and in any case I didn't see your post as combative at all. I simply wanted to point out some things before they became mis-conceptions.
I also think, that you are missing part of my point.
Don't read *freak* when I say "un-natural" or not "perfectly natural".
I don't mean *freak* I mean "un-natural".
I think we could fall into the danger of having a disagreement over semantics, if we are not careful.
My first example was that skydivers (and I chose that deliberately) are not "perfectly natural". I obviously like skiydivers because I am one. But I still am happy to accept that they are "un-natural".
The Return of the 'nut
2005-09-03, 09:05
I would agree that it is not neccessarily "natural"
Of course, I guess that depends on your definition of natural.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.